Sibelius Opinions

[Gary Morrison]

Do any of you have any positive or negative experiences with the
score/part-writing program Sibelius?

I have an ancient version of Finale, complete with its user interface
designed to be highly intuitive to Martians. I've heard that Sibelius
produces nearly equal-quality results but is designed for Earthlings.

[Richard Crowley]

"Gary Morrison" wrote ...
> Do any of you have any positive or negative experiences
> with the score/part-writing program Sibelius?
>
> I have an ancient version of Finale, complete with its user
> interface designed to be highly intuitive to Martians. I've
> heard that Sibelius produces nearly equal-quality results
> but is designed for Earthlings.

I have been using Sibelius for several years. While I don't have any direct
experience with Finale, I do know that compared to other music
notation/engraving software I've seen/used, Sibelius is MUCH easier to use,
more flexible, and more complete. IMHO Sibelius is the pro-quality SW by
which all the others are measured. It seems to be the standard with everyone
I know, and there are some glowing testimonials from big names in music. I'm
certainly sold.

[ScotFraser]

<< I have an ancient version of Finale, complete with its user interface
designed to be highly intuitive to Martians. I've heard that Sibelius
produces nearly equal-quality results but is designed for Earthlings. >>

Friends & clients of mine who do score preparation for Hollywood sound track
sessions tell me that although Finale is still the de facto standard, many are
migrating to Sibelius. Those who use both tell me Sibelius is WAY easier to
learn & use.


Scott Fraser

[Eric Griffin]

Finale: still the de facto standard among pros and the most often accepted
electronic format for many publishers. Can do nearly *anything*
notationally. Still very tool-based, which is most of what makes it hard to
use. Takes some relatively high-maintenance tweaking of details after
extraction. Obnoxious copy-protection is reportedly returning in the next
version.

Sibelius: almost monolithically accepted as easiest to use.
Object-oriented rather than tool-based. Best-suited for traditional
notation, but can do some weird stuff with some pretty heavy-duty tweaking.
Default auto-formatting usually gets pretty close on both scores and
extracted parts. Scorch internet publishing plug-in is pretty cool.
Obnoxious copy-protection is present, but it really only gets in the way
whenever you must reinstall it.

--Eric


"Peter KERR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Gary Morrison > wrote:
> > Do any of you have any positive or negative experiences with the
> > score/part-writing program Sibelius?
> >
> > I have an ancient version of Finale, complete with its user interface
> > designed to be highly intuitive to Martians. I've heard that Sibelius
> > produces nearly equal-quality results but is designed for Earthlings.
>
> Sibelius is now being pushed in the edu market because it is so easy to
> use, but for a while there they didn't have an edu price.
>
> FWIW many of the academics touting Sibelius to their students, still
> cling to Finale because it's better for the esoteric stuf,
> ethnomusicology, electro-acoustic notation, plainchant, ...
> Finale also seems to have stronger (if more obtuse :-(
> graphics/print export options, and parts management for big scores.

[Gary Morrison]

> Sibelius: ... Obnoxious copy-protection is present, but it really only gets
> in the way
> whenever you must reinstall it.

What is the nature of its copy-protection scheme?

[Billy Bee]

I used Finale and always would curse at the editing procedure. I used it
because I had to for scoring or writing purposes but then my trumpet player
told me about Sibelius. He knew Finale inside and out and could always help
when I was stuck. I gave it a try and never looked back. For me, the
interface is much easier to use. As far as it being useful for esoteric
tunings and scales, can't say for sure. Why not download the demo and take
it for a test spin.


"Gary Morrison" > wrote in message
...
> Peter KERR wrote:
>
> > ... still
> > cling to Finale because it's better for the esoteric stuf ...
>
> Ah, that's an interesting point. I seem to vaguely recall that Finale
lets
> you define your own cyclic (or not) scale patterns, which could be useful
> for microtonal tunings - a topic I'm interested in.
>
>

[J. Joyce]

Sibelius is a very good program that still has a few bugs. It is
moderately easier to use, but some things are not explained and have
to be tracked down on the website, which is fairly easy to do but time
consuming. It really depends on what you want it for. The Tablature
interface is pretty useful in that you can specify scordatura, but not
too many people would use that feature. You can write violin tab, for
example, which is useful for transnotating some of the more esoteric
repertory. Some of the keyboard notation bits are really good and
well thought out. You can write or modify the plugins, and the program
comes with some good ones.

Like many mainstream code bloat programs, there are some things it
WON'T do, which is annoying, but this is true for finale as well.
(Nota Bene will do things that Microsoft Word cannot.)

Part extraction even for large scores is a breeze, and the program
will find a good page turn if you ask it nicely.

Figured bass input is superior to all other programs if you care for
such things.

Subjectively, the magnetic slurs work and look better than other
programs, but have a few bugs.

Lyric inputting and spacing algorithms are easy and excellent

The out of the box page format is better than finale, IMHO, and if you
like NOT to tweak the look that is a factor. After tweaking, there is
only a slight difference in the elegance of the fonts; in this regard,
Sibelius has more of an engraver look and Finale a computer look.

You can use scanfont and other programs to incorporate your own music
fonts.
The "light" version of Photoscore actually works fairly well.


Those with good keyboard skills can play in the notes with one hand
and the rhythms with the other hand, it can be done with blinding
speed. Real time is less accurate but good nonetheless. You can also
type in the notes from the Qwerty and/or keypad.

Net publishing is well integrated.

Mannerist notation is a royal pain, as are contemporary pieces in
multiple time signatures.

Very, very large scores (the fifty pounders) work OK, which is a good
thing, and the very very long hairpins are possible and look good on
my printer. I can print these on poster paper.

Is it better than Finale? Yes. Is it easy to learn--sort of.
Will it do everything? No. Does it look good? Yes indeed.
Does it crash? Of course!

For the odd tough tasks, I use Score, which is a real program.
For everything else, Sibelius is fine.
jj

[Gary Morrison]

Those are good thoughts. Thanks.

> It really depends on what you want it for.

The main purpose I have in mind is for writing out scores and parts for
compositions that I'm not performing entirely on MIDI instruments, which I
expect to be doing more of in the future. Historically, when I've written
for "real" instruments, I've mostly done that by hand onto paper. So in
short, I want it for writing out parts and scores from a MIDI-composed
work, writing them out in high enough quality that a performer won't freak
out.

Logic Audio isn't too terribly far off in this regard, if you use it
cleverly. Of course it's not exactly full-featured in this regard, since
it's fundamentally a MIDI/Audio performance program. The main annoyance in
what it does do is that everytime you enter a new hierarchical fragment
from the layout view of the music, it pops up an extraneous clef.

>
>
> Figured bass input is superior to all other programs if you care for
> such things.

Figured bass, eh? Does it in some sense play back figured bass?

>
>
> Those with good keyboard skills can play in the notes with one hand
> and the rhythms with the other hand, it can be done with blinding
> speed.

I'm more of a woodwind and string dude, but that sounds interesting
nevertheless.

>
>
> You can also
> type in the notes from the Qwerty and/or keypad.

That sounds interesting when you want to just quickly jot something down.

[Richard Crowley]

"Gary Morrison" wrote ...
> > Likely an in-situ checksum based on hard drive (much
> > like the one for WinXP, etc.) and then a corresponding
> > key calculated by Sibelius and stored in the registry.
>
> Registry... As in on-line? Do you have to be currently
> "plugged in" to the internet to use it?

No, the Windows registry. Internal to your computer...
http://www.winguides.com/article.php?id=1&guide=registry

The Sibelius "key" is likely one of those "encoded" ones
with a 128-bit hexadecimal "name".

[Gary Morrison]

Richard Crowley wrote:

> No, the Windows registry. Internal to your computer...

Ah. I'm a Mac-hack, so that's why that term didn't register. I suspect
that that's somewhat analogous with MacOS9's desktop file.

[Steve O'Neill]

Gary Morrison wrote:
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>
>>No, the Windows registry. Internal to your computer...
>
>
> Ah. I'm a Mac-hack, so that's why that term didn't register. I suspect
> that that's somewhat analogous with MacOS9's desktop file.

Be glad that you're not even close. OS9's desktop file is a simple database,
easily reconstructed. The windoze Registry is an enormous chasm where there be
monsters. It stores *everything* windoze needs to know and if it gets hosed,
windoze can be completely and unrecoverably destroyed. I've edited it a *lot*
(successfully) and I've see Norton destroy it, making windoze unbootable. It's
one of windoze' many serious weak points.

[Michael Droste]

Took a grad. course with Doug Hicks this summer at Vandercook in
Chicago...

Half the class on finale and the other on sib.

Finale (i am a long time user) i write an exercise or pages every now
and then... completely forget and have to relearn the program every
time.. too complicated - no retention.

sib. intuitive easy simple

----

BUT BUT BUT

Finale has seen the writing on the wall... They have incorporated the
speedy note entry idea from sib. NOW in the newest version of finale
coming next month. (oct.) SUPER SIMPLE - you want a 'A' note in the
score, push down the 'A' key --- a simple but brilliant idea from sib.
NOW IN BOTH sib. and fin. (you hold down a number key to assign the
rhythmic value)

90% or more of your entry will be this way

call me if you want more info
-Michael Droste
630-690-8692

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Michael Droste > wrote:

> SUPER SIMPLE - you want a 'A' note in the
> score, push down the 'A' key --- a simple but brilliant idea from sib.
> NOW IN BOTH sib. and fin. (you hold down a number key to assign the
> rhythmic value)

Reminds me of Band in a Box. <g>

--
ha

[Gary Morrison]

Steve O'Neill wrote:

> OS9's desktop file is a simple database,
> easily reconstructed. The windoze Registry is an enormous chasm where there be
> monsters.

Ah.

I speculated that because I've seen some copy protection schemes work by adding
stuff to the desktop file, the result being that you have to reinstall everytime
you rebuild the desktop file, or something implicitly requires that portion of it
to be reconstructed. Anyway, this sounds different, from what you said.

[Richard Crowley]

"Steve O'Neill" wrote ...
> Be glad that you're not even close. OS9's desktop file is a simple
database,
> easily reconstructed. The windoze Registry is an enormous chasm where
there be
> monsters. It stores *everything* windoze needs to know and if it gets
hosed,
> windoze can be completely and unrecoverably destroyed.

Nah. Just log on as another user and it creates you a fresh, new registry!
Happens dozens of times a day in all my classrooms.

[Steve O'Neill]

Richard Crowley wrote:

> "Steve O'Neill" wrote ...
>
>> easily reconstructed. The windoze Registry is an enormous chasm where
>
>
>> windoze can be completely and unrecoverably destroyed.
>
>
>
> Nah. Just log on as another user and it creates you a fresh, new
registry!
> Happens dozens of times a day in all my classrooms.


I hadn't heard that. I don't think it's true...and it would only be for
HKCU, the current user profile, if so.

[Richard Crowley]

> Richard Crowley wrote:
> > Nah. Just log on as another user and it creates you
> > a fresh, new registry!
> > Happens dozens of times a day in all my classrooms.


"Steve O'Neill" wrote ...
> I hadn't heard that. I don't think it's true...

Works for me. I customize all sorts of things by manipulating
the registry file in the "All Users" and "Default User" folders.
Only way I found to defeat the default "power down after 60
minuites" profile. Can't apply patches remotely to 100s of
computers when they keep powering down!